Emor 5770-2010

"Striving For Perfection"

Much of parashat Emor speaks of holiness, faultlessness, striving for perfection and the proper observance of the holy days. In fact, the entire introductory portion of the parasha deals with the purity of the priesthood and the holiness of the sacrifices. Consequently, all gifts that are brought to G-d are expected to be faultless and specifically set apart for sacred purposes. Whether the gift is to be a religious gift or a gift of charity, the donor must seek to ensure its perfection.

Therefore, it is not at all surprising that we read in Leviticus 22:21, "V'eesh kee yahk'reev zeh'vahch sh'lah'meem la'Hashem," Anyone who brings a sacrifice of peace-offerings to G-d in fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or for a free-will offering of the herd or of the flock, "Ta'meem yee'yeh l'rah'tzohn, kol moom lo yee'yeh bo," It must be perfect to be accepted, there shall be no blemish upon it.

The Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob, 1470-1550, Italian Bible commentator) points out that even those sacrifices that are of a lesser degree of holiness there must not be blemished.

The fact that sacrifices must be of the most select stock was taught cogently in Genesis 4:4, where the Torah relates that both Cain and Abel brought offerings to G-d. In acknowledgment of the bountiful crop, Cain brought "of the fruit of the ground," while Abel brought "the firstlings of his flock and their choicest." The Al-mighty accepted Abel and his offering, but not the offering of Cain. From this, our rabbis deduced that Cain's offering was of the inferior portions of the crop, while Abel chose only the finest of his flock. Hence, the well-known rabbinic aphorism (Berachot 5b), stating that it makes no difference whether one gives more or less, as long as it is done with full devotion of the heart.

Maimonides (the Rambam, the great Jewish philosopher, codifier and physician, 1135-1204), in his Yad Ha'chazaka, Mishne Torah, Issurei Mizbe'ah, (Laws of things that are Prohibited for the Altar) 7:11, writes as follows:

The same principle applies to everything done for the sake of G-d: It must be of the finest and best. If one builds a house of prayer it should be finer than his private dwelling. If he feeds the hungry, he should give them the best and sweetest of his table. If he clothes the naked, he should give him the finest of his garments.

In their book, Maimonides and His Heritage, the authors, Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Lenn Evan Goodman and James Allen Grady point to a fascinating contrast of the Jewish attitude regarding munificence, with those of Aristotle (384–322 BCE). They note that according to the ancient Greek philosophers one must seek out the best when it comes to public buildings, temples, and the like, but not when it comes to charity. Apparently, the ancients were of the opinion that the valuing of charitable acts by others is based on the erroneous assumption on the part of the "free-riders." The poor obviously believed that there will always be generous persons who will want to help them, who will have the means to do so, and the will to provide for their care. In fact, the ancient philosophers felt that such behavior is destructive of both the means of those who had the ability to give and their will to support them.

One disconcerting outcome of the attitudes fostered by the burgeoning "service economy" that has gained traction in the United States recently, is the notion that if one wants something done properly it is always advisable to call an expert. Many have forsaken all aspiration of becoming proficient in so many important areas of their lives. Instead, they rely more and more on others to do those tasks, since money has been relatively abundant and such efforts are often energy depleting. So while many Americans increasingly search for the path of least resistance and least effort, they have, at the same time, become much less skilled people.

It's not only that many of us no longer know how to iron, sew or polish silver properly, we have even lost such fundamental skills as cutting our own nails and our hair, and even cleaning our face and skin. All of these roles have been farmed out to professionals. Often, when confronted with basic medical and emotional issues, we feel compelled to run straight to the doctor, at the slightest sign of a sniffle.

This lesson was driven home to me recently as I witness the increasing takeover of the "shiva home" by professionals who deliver luxurious shiva seats, extra folding chairs for visitors, prayer books, even water coolers, which of course make the shiva experience much more pleasant and easier to manage. But, we must ask ourselves, at what cost? Does it mean that our Chevra Kadisha, burial society members composed of community volunteers, have been relieved of the "burden" of caring for the mourners? Isn't there great satisfaction, not to mention a great mitzvah, that one gets when caring for mourners? But now the professionals have moved in, obviating the need for the community to be there for those in mourning.

It seems as if the citizens of our country are rapidly becoming a nation of would-be deadbeats. They are losing the passion and the will to seek perfection, to be wholehearted, and ultimately to be compassionate. How often do we now rationalize by saying that professionals can do it better, so why not let them take care of things? Is it perhaps a smokescreen, because we have become too lazy or no longer care?

Striving for perfection should not become a lost art, not only in our relationship with G-d, but also in our relationships with other human beings. The Bible reminds us that we should do things wholeheartedly, so that it may find favor in G-d's eyes and in human eyes.

If we follow that advice, how can we go wrong?

May you be blessed.

Please note: The festival of Lag Ba'Omer (literally the 33 rd day of the counting of the Omer) will start Saturday night, May 1, and continue all day Sunday, May 2, 2010. The Omer period is the 49 days from the second night of Passover through the day before Shavuot. The 33 rd day is considered a festival because, on that day, the students of Rabbi Akiva ceased dying and because it marks the anniversary of the passing of Rabbi Simon bar Yochai.

Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 5770-2010

"Loving Thy Neighbor" --

In parashat Kedoshim, the second of this week’s double parashiot -- Acharei Mot-Kedoshim, we read the famous, indeed, revolutionary verse from Leviticus 19:18: “V’ah’havta l’ray’ah’cha kah’mocha, ah’nee Hashem,” You shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord.

This statement is universally regarded as one of the greatest pronouncements of human morality. In fact, Rabbi Akiva (Talmudic sage, 50-135 CE), is cited in the Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:4, as saying that loving one’s neighbor as oneself is one of the greatest principles, if not the greatest, in the entire Torah.

It is fascinating to note that the earlier Talmudic sage, Hillel (110 BCE-10 CE), also regarded this verse as a fundamental principle. However, when he was asked by a potential proselyte to teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot, he chose to restructure the statement in the negative. In the Talmudic tractate Shabbat 31a, Hillel told the candidate for conversion, “What is hateful unto you, do not do to your neighbor--that is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary, go study.”

Apparently, Rabbi Akiva agreed with Hillel’s sentiment, which is based on the assumption that it is virtually impossible for anyone to love another person as much as one loves oneself, and certainly not more than one loves oneself. Furthermore, Rabbi Akiva in Baba Metziah 62a, determines, in the case of two people who are in the desert with a single flask of water, that if there is only enough water for a single person to survive, the owner of the flask may drink the water. He does not have to share the water with his traveling companion, because who is to say that the companion’s life is more valuable than his own.

Many regard this verse as the basic pillar upon which the entire Torah is based. It is from this verse of loving one’s neighbor that Jewish law derives the performance of good deeds, such as visiting the sick, arranging for the burial of the dead, comforting the bereaved, providing dowries for poor brides and protecting the possessions of others as if they were their own.

The Ibn Ezra (1098-c.1164, Spanish Bible commentator)learns from this verse that there should be no difference between what a person wishes for himself and the benefit that he wishes for his fellow human being. After all, every human being was created by G-d. Maimonidies (the Rambam, 1135-1204, the great Jewish philosopher, codifier and physician) posits that this is the reason that a person who assumes the responsibility of protecting the possessions of others is to think and feel as if he is guarding his own property.

The Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob, 1470-1550, Italian Bible commentator) and the Hizzekuni (Hezkiah ben Manoah, French exegete of the 13th century) suggest that the best way to observe this commandment is to put oneself in the next person’s position. When thinking of a friend who is ill, one must say, “If I were ill myself, what would be the greatest blessing I could seek from G-d?”, and then must pray for the ill person to receive that exact blessing.

The Ba’al HaTurim (c.1275-1340, Jacob ben Asher, Germany and Spain, famed halakhist and author of a comprehensive commentary on the Torah) suggests that this verse teaches that one must always be sensitive to the feelings of others. For example, he states that when one is intimate with one’s wife, one should not think of another woman. One of my teachers in high school advised his “hormone-challenged” teenage male students to treat their girlfriends as they would like others to treat their sisters. (Maybe it’s a generational thing, but I’m not sure that this advice would work very well today!)

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel of Kopitchinitz (1888-1967, prominent Hassidic rabbi in Europe and New York) concluded that loving one’s neighbor is not intended to apply to saintly and righteous people, since it is almost impossible not to love them. To the contrary, this verse bids all to especially love those people whom it is hard to love. The Alter of Slabodka (Nosson Zvi Finkel, 1849-1927, famed Rosh Yeshiva in Europe and Israel and one of the leaders of the Mussar movement) used to say that the commandment to love others as oneself implies that just as a person loves himself instinctively, without the need to justify that love, one should love others as well without looking for reasons, but simply because they are fellow human beings.

There is an age-old debate regarding the so-called “parochial” nature of the Hebrew bible’s statement of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. There are those who maintain that the words “V’ah’havtah l’ray’acha”, love your neighbor, limit a Jew’s love only to other Jews, as opposed to the Christian bible, which seems to expand this love to apply to all humanity.

Rabbi Dr. Joseph H. Hertz (1872-1946, late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire) takes strong exception to this Christian assertion. He points to the verse in Exodus 11:2, where the Jews in Egypt are instructed to ask their neighbors for jewels of gold and silver. Clearly the word “ray’ah” in that context cannot possibly mean a fellow Israelite, but must refer to Egyptians. Bernard J. Bamberger, in his commentary on the book of Leviticus, astutely points out that in ancient times few people had the opportunity to express their love to neighbors beyond those in their immediate vicinity. “Only in recent centuries, has the average person had the knowledge, or the opportunity and the obligation to apply the ‘Golden Rule’ on a global scale” (p. 893).

Rabbi Hertz argues further, that even those who do interpret “ray’ah” to refer exclusively to Jews, could not possibly deny the universal application for caring for all people that is found in Leviticus 19:34. The verse there teaches that the stranger who sojourns with you shall be unto you as a homeborn, and you shall love him as yourself. Rabbi Hertz argues that the word for stranger, “ger,” applies to all humanity, and that there is no question that every Jew is obligated to love all human beings.

The Rebbe of Sadigor (Sadagora), (Rabbi Abraham Jacob Friedman, son of the Hassidic Rebbe of Rizhin, 1819-1883), explains that the verse of loving one’s neighbor concludes with the words “Ah’nee Hashem”–-I am the L-rd, to teach that the way we treat our neighbors will be the way that we will ultimately be treated by the Al-mighty!

May you be blessed.

Yom Haatzmaut, Israel's Independence Day (which is preceded by Yom HaZikaron–-Israel’s Memorial Day, April 19th) is observed this year on the 6th of Iyar, Monday evening, April 19th, and all day Tuesday, April 20th. (In the diaspora, some observe it one day earlier).

Tazria-Metzorah 5770-2010

"The Human Animal" --

On three of the next four Shabbatot, the Torah readings will consist of combined parashiot. The main reason for the doubling up is to make certain that the reading of the entire five books of the Torah will be completed by Simchat Torah.

In parashat Tazria, the first of this week’s double parashiot Tazria-Metzorah, we read of the laws that govern the ritual status of women following the birth of a child, whether male or female. G-d speaks to Moses, instructing him to speak to the children of Israel and say to them (Leviticus 12:2): “Ee’sha kee tazria v’yalda zachar,” When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child....

The rabbis are perplexed as to why these laws of childbirth immediately follow the laws of kosher and non-kosher animals that are found at the end of the previous parasha, Shemini.

The Midrash Tanchuma explains the juxtaposition by stating that G-d created the human being both “before and after” the creation of the sixth day. The Midrash goes on to explain that of the six things that were created on Friday (the sixth day of the week), the exalted human soul was created first. Adam and Eve, however, were created last, after the animals, due to the fact that the “human animal” is often no better, and, at times, far worse, than other animals. Therefore, the laws pertaining to human animals appear in the Torah after the laws of all the other animals.

Rabbi Nissen Telushkin(1881-1970, Russian born Chassidic scholar, who was a leading expert in Jewish law in Brooklyn, NY) in his book, HaTorah v’haOlam, Torah and the World,explains that human beings have the capability of expressing all the worst qualities that are found among animals. The human being can be gluttonous and promiscuous. A human being can anger easily, be vengeful, bear a grudge, be blood thirsty and covet the possessions of others. The primary advantage of human beings over beasts of the field is the Divine soul--the spirit and intelligence with which they are endowed. These spiritual endowments make it possible for humans to conquer their evil inclinations, to choose to do good and eschew evil.

It was the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900),who expounded on the greatness of the physical human being and denigrated the spiritual human being. To Nietzsche and his followers, power was the most exalted human endowment. Righteousness, justice and compassion are the concern of slaves and lower human beings. The “Ubermensch” has no need for justice, righteousness or compassion, only strength and power.

According to the Torah, however, the spiritually exalted human being can even use his so-called “evil” endowments to do much good.

Although pridefulness is normally considered a negative human characteristic, it may at times promote good. For example, a person living in a thoroughly wicked environment would normally not know to do good. Being exposed to constant wickedness, such a person would inevitably be greatly influenced by the perpetual evil, were it not for the fact that he may wish to stand out from the crowd and be different. In such a case, hubris may actually encourage such a person to act differently than others.

One who lusts after the possessions of others is generally considered evil, but not one who lusts for, or is jealous of, the greatness of a neighbor’s wisdom, or good deeds with man and G-d. This is precisely what our rabbis allude to in Baba Batra 21a, “Kin’aht sofreem tar’beh chochmah,” Jealousy among scholars increases wisdom.

Similarly, anger may at times be properly utilized to guide and teach children and young adults. Even the ethical masters, the Baalei Mussar, who loathed anger, would allow their adherents to occasionally display anger, as long as it was intended to achieve a positive end. Teachers and parents were thus advised to set fixed times to show anger, in order to properly discipline children and students. But, only on the condition that as soon as the “anger-time” was up, they would return to their required calm demeanor.

A story is told of a particular Chassidic master, who, when overcome with feelings of anger, would quickly run to his study to look through his entire library to search for a source in a religious text that would permit him to express his anger. He explained that normally when a follower would come to ask whether something was kosher or not, he would enter his library to search for the proper answer in the holy books. He would never rely on his memory to determine a law, for he wanted to make certain that his answer was correct. While in the library, he felt like a student before his rabbi. “Why,” he said, “should it be any different with anger? I need to consult with my rabbis, the masters [meaning the books], to find out whether I am entitled to be angry?” Obviously, while looking for a justification for his anger in the holy tomes, in most instances his anger dissipated.

Rabbi Telushkin cites a play on words found in the biblical verse(Numbers 19:14): “Adam kee ya’moot b’ohel,” If a person dies in a tent, by emphasizing that one should not allow the “Adam” -- the moral element in each human being, to die. Otherwise, we are left with only our animalistic tendencies.

We humans, created in the Divine image, must appreciate that we are endowed with holy souls that are primarily intended to be utilized to encourage positive growth and the performance of good and noble deeds. Even the physical, animalistic qualities in us, such as anger and jealousy may be used for good. After all, despite the fact that animals were created before Adam and Eve, the human soul was created before the human body, and it is the human soul that distinguishes us from animals.

May you be blessed.

Follwing the ruling of the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel, the 62nd year of Israel’s independence will be celebrated on Monday evening, April 19th and all day Tuesday, April 20th, the 6th of Iyar.

Shemini 5770-2010

"The Show Must Go On" --

In this coming week's parasha, parashat Shemini, the first day of Nissan, the day about which Aaron had been dreaming, finally arrived. The Tabernacle, which had been completed on the 25th day of Kislev, was now ready to be erected. At the same time that the Tabernacle would be erected, Aaron and his four sons were to be invested as Kohanim, priests of Israel.

All the suffering that Aaron had endured in Egypt, the personal mortification that Aaron experienced when the people complained that Moses and Aaron were only making things more difficult for them with Pharaoh, the sin of the Golden Calf for which he was blamed–-all this was behind him, and now what was expected to be the most glorious day of Aaron's life was at hand.

Unfortunately, this most glorious day was to turn into the most tragic day of Aaron's life. Wittingly or unwittingly, his two eldest sons, Nadab and Abihu, bring fire pans with a "strange fire" before G-d. A great flame comes down from heaven, consumes them and they die. Moses tries to console his grief-stricken brother by saying that G-d is sanctified by those who are closest to Him, so it must be that G-d really wanted Nadab and Abihu in His presence. Aaron's reaction was total silence.

We then read in Leviticus 10:12, that Moses calls out to Aaron, and to Elazar and Itamar, Aaron's remaining sons, and instructs them: "K'choo et ha'Mincha ha'no'teret may'eeshay Hashem, v'ich'loo'hah matzot, aytzel ha'mizbay'ach, kee kodesh kodashim hee," Take the meal offering that is left from the fire offerings of G-d, and eat it unleavened near the altar; for it is the most holy.

Three he goats were to be offered by the priests as sin offerings on that day: 1)one as a gift of the Prince of the tribe of Judah, Nachshon the son of Aminadav, as part of the series of offerings that were brought by each of the twelve tribal princes 2) a second sin offering was to commemorate the inauguration of the Tabernacle 3) the third sin offering was to mark Rosh Chodesh, the new moon of Nissan.

In a baffling development, Aaron and his sons offer the first two sacrifices, those for the Prince of the tribe of Judah and for the inauguration of the Tabernacle. However, when Moses inquires about the sin offering for Rosh Chodesh he discovers that it had been completely burned without the priests partaking of it, as is usually done. Scripture tells us that Moses demands of Elazar and Itamar to know why they did not eat of the sin offering in a holy place. It is Aaron, however, who responds, telling Moses that they did bring the other two sin offerings and burnt offerings. However, after the tragedy struck, would G-d have approved of the priests eating the sin offering on this day? The Torah then tells us, (Leviticus 10:20) "Va'yishma Moshe, va'yeetav b'aynav", Moses heard Aaron's response and accepted it.

It's hard to believe that after witnessing his two sons die because they failed to follow the precise instructions of G-d, that Aaron had the temerity, together with his two sons, to once again defy G-d's instructions, and refuse to offer or to eat of the sin offering of Rosh Chodesh!

Several commentators attempt to explain Aaron's actions. Some suggest that Aaron concluded that the two sacrifices that had to be brought were the ones that were Horaat Sha'ah, one-time offerings that were to be sacrificed this time only and never again. Therefore the sin offerings of Nachson the Prince and the inauguration of the Tabernacle were offered. However, the sin offering of Rosh Chodesh, which comes every month, does not have to be done in this hour of mourning, since it would nevertheless be observed monthly in the future. Moses accepts Aaron's explanation.

Moses on the other hand, at least initially, felt that in the service of G-d, "The show must go on!" Leaders must put aside their personal considerations, even heartbreak and mourning, and ensure that the worship of G-d by the people continues properly and meaningfully.

The fact that Moses accepted Aaron's explanation indicates that there is truth to both sides of the argument. Aaron also understood that there are times that the show must go on, but only when there is no alternative, when there is no possibility for make-up offerings. However, it is entirely justified to cancel or postpone an action, even a public action, when there will surely be other opportunities for the "show to go on."

Moses however, felt compelled by the other side of the argument. He surely understood that there are times when the show can't go on, but those occasions should be far and few between. After all, much of life is made up of choices that are often beyond our personal control. Moses was, in effect, emphasizing the need for everyone to master the "art" of making difficult decisions, and to be able to forge ahead no matter the impediments and challenges. In fact, those difficult choices in life are frequently the ones that become the most meaningful when they are finally made and come to fruition.

Many choices in life are not easy, but ultimately prove to be rewarding. I have chosen the path of outreach, devoting my life to teach Jews who unfortunately never had a chance to learn, to try to expose our un-affiliated brothers and sisters to the beauty and joy of Judaism. It may sound glorious, but it is tough. Rejection is frequent.

It is not easy to conduct a weekly Beginners Service, repeating the same basic explanations again and again, trying to make them not sound repetitious. It is most challenging to make a Torah portion interesting for an audience of inchoate Jews, when the Torah speaks in the excruciating detail of the building of the Tabernacle and of animal sacrifices. But the reward is great.

It is challenging as well for well-meaning, practicing Jews to have non-observant guests over their homes on Shabbat once a month, to try to positively inspire them. Unfortunately, many practicing Jews want to quickly finish the meal and get to their Shabbat naps, but their guests continue to ask questions, and the hosts often do not know the answers. It's uncomfortable! And if we have guests at our home on a regular basis, what toll does it take on our children, who are often shunted to the sidelines?

Aaron said, there are limits, and we must stop. Moses said, there obviously are limits, but this is not the time for limits, we must forge ahead, and redeem every possible Jew.

My vote is with Moses. What is yours?

May you be blessed.

The seventh and eighth days of Passover begin on Sunday evening, April 4th, and continue through Monday and Tuesday, April 5th and 6th.

Chag Kasher V'samayach. Wishing all our friends a wonderful, joyous and meaningful Passover.

Yom Hashoah is observed this year on Saturday night, April 10th and all day Sunday, April 11, 2010.

Tzav 5770-2010

"The Command" --

In this coming week’s parasha, parashat Tzav, the Al-mighty says to Moses (Leviticus 6:2): “Tzav et Aharon v’et bah’nahv lay’mor: Zoht toh’raht ha’olah,” Command Aaron and his sons saying, “This is the Law of the Olah, the burnt offering.”

In last week’s parasha, Vayikra, the Torah enumerates the general rules for all the offerings: the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. The second verse of parashat Tzav, however, is the first instance where the word “Tzav,” command, is used with respect to a sacrifice. The other offerings were introduced with the words (Leviticus 1:2): “v’ah’mar’tah” say or (Leviticus 4:2): “da’bayer,” speak. Apparently, when the rules of the offerings are addressed directly to the people who bring these offerings the Torah uses a softer language. Now, however, when the Torah speaks directly to Aaron and his sons to teach them additional laws that have bearing on the sacrificial service, the Torah uses the more forceful imperative, “command.”

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible)explains that the word Tzav, command, implies that the Kohanim, the priests, must be urged to be especially diligent when performing the Olah service. Furthermore, it applies not only to contemporary times, but also to future generations. Rashi also cites Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the Midrash, who argues that the priests must show particular commitment in this instance because their involvement with the Olah offering may result in a considerable financial loss to them.

Many commentators wonder why the Midrash’s reference to monetary loss is specifically associated with the Olah offering. The Taz (Rabbi David HaLevi Segal, 1586–1667, prominent Polish halachic authority and commentator on the Shulchan Aruch) in his volume, Divrei David, amplifies the question, pointing out that Rabbi Shimon was also perplexed as to why the word Tzav is mentioned only with regard to the Olah, the burnt offering. Shouldn’t the priests be urged to be conscientious in performing all sacrifices, not only the Olah, not only for now, but for all generations?

The Taz points to the fact that the priests needed encouragement with the burnt offering, in particular, since the offering is consumed completely by fire. This is in distinction to all other sacrifices where priests receive some of the flesh and are permitted to eat parts of the other sacrifices. Consequently, there is some doubt whether the priests will be as punctilious when dealing with the burnt offering. After all, the priests receive no personal benefit from this particular sacrifice.

The Gur Aryeh (supercommentary on Rashi, authored by Rabbi Judah Lowe, 1526-1609, the Maharal of Prague) adds to this by saying that not only do the priests not receive any benefit from the burnt offering, they may in fact suffer significant losses since, being preoccupied with the Olah, they are not free to earn their regular livelihood. Furthermore, even though the hides of the Olah are given to the priests, the hides’ value does not equal the priests’ loss of income.

The Ramban (Nachmanides, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270, Spanish Torah commentator) says that the monetary loss here is not that of the offering itself. He believes that it refers to the meal offering that priests are required to bring of their own resources to accompany each burnt offering.

Rabbi Yaakov Philber (Jerusalem scholar and educator, a leading disciple of Rav Kook), in his writings on the weekly parasha entitled Chemdat Yamim, further develops this theme. Citing the Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer, 1762-1839, Rabbi of Pressburg) and other commentators, Rabbi Philber points out that the priests need encouragement especially with the Olah sacrifice. Because they receive so little from the Olah sacrifice, they would probably encourage the people to bring other sacrifices such as sin or guilt offerings from which the priests’ share is much greater.

The Chatam Sofer even suggests that emphasis should be placed on the first verse that states that G-d spoke to Moshe “lay’mor,” saying, indicating that there is a special mitzvah incumbent upon the priests to teach the people about the “Torah” of the burnt offering. The Talmud in Menachot 110a, cites Rabbi Isaac who asks: Why does the verse in Leviticus 7:37 state, “This is the law [Torah] of the burnt offering”? To teach that anyone who studies the laws of the burnt offering is considered as if he had already brought the offering. The Talmudic sage Ravah adds that those who study Torah are relieved of the obligation of bringing any sacrifices.

It may very well be that priests would be reluctant to encourage the people to study the laws concerning these offerings, since they know that those who study them are no longer required to bring offerings, resulting in significant financial losses for the priests. For that reason, the priests must be encouraged to be honest in their instruction, even though they may suffer financially. Ironically, it may even be to the benefit of the priests that the people sin, since they stand to profit from the sacrifices that are brought by the sinners!

Rabbi Philber points out that the “loss” may not necessarily be only financial, since the Olah ritual includes the priests’ responsibility to clean the ashes and maintain the fire on the altar. The cleaning of the ashes and the lighting of the fire might be regarded by the priests as denigrating. The priests, therefore, need encouragement in order to be prepared to sacrifice their self-esteem or honor when they fulfill their duties.

There is another important and powerful lesson that can be learned from the command given to the priests with regard to the burnt offering. There is an ongoing debate regarding the ultimate purpose of Jewish life. There are those who argue that the ultimate goal of Jewish life is to achieve joy. They maintain that one who keeps the Jewish commandments and lives a life according to G-d’s instructions, will find great personal happiness and joy. In fact, they point to the Garden of Eden, the garden of pleasantness or pleasure, as the ultimate ideal of Judaism.

I would argue that Judaism stands for a value significantly higher than joy. The ultimate value of Judaism is more a sense of fulfillment than a sense of joy or happiness. When one shops for the elderly or the infirm, visits the sick, or buries the dead, it can hardly be said that one reaps much joy from the experience. Quite to the contrary. Oftentimes, the experience is not very pleasant at all. But, there is a profound sense of fulfillment that one experiences that brings pleasure to the person who has performed a kindness or good deed.

The Cohen who has to burn the entire burnt offering without taking a part for himself and his family, experiences no joy. There is little joy in cleaning up the ashes or in keeping the fire of the altar burning 24 hours a day, every single day of the year. There is no joy for the priest who teaches the people of Israel not to sin, when he knows that it will likely lead to fewer sin offerings and less income for himself and his family. But there is the sense of knowing that what he is doing is the right thing, which results in a profound sense of fulfillment.

That is perhaps why our rabbis (Kiddushin 31a) say: “Gadol ha’metzuveh v’oh’seh, yoh’ter me’me sheh’ay’no metzuveh v’oh’seh” Greater is the reward for one who is commanded to do something and does it, than for someone who does it voluntarily. No one likes to be commanded to do anything. There is always resistance to commands! But there is right and wrong. There is benefit and a detriment. But, since there is great resistance when one is told what to do, the reward is greater, because one’s natural instincts are defied. The Cohen has sublimated his normal reaction to a command–-the tendency to lash out and say “absolutely not.”

These lessons are not for priests alone, but for all people. By faithfully living by this dictum, not only is the burnt sacrifice elevated, but the priests and the people are elevated as well.

May you be blessed.

This Shabbat, the Shabbat that immediately precedes Passover, is also known as Shabbat Hagadol, the Great Shabbat. On this Shabbat, we read a special Haftarah from the prophet Malachi 3:4-24, in which we find the verse: "Behold I send to you Elijah the Prophet, before the great and awesome day of G-d." For more information on Shabbat Hagadol, see Tzav 5762-2002.

The first two days of the joyous festival of Passover will be observed this year on Monday night, March 29th and all day Tuesday and Wednesday, March 30th and 31st. The seventh and eighth days of Passover begin on Sunday night, April 4th, and continue through Monday and Tuesday, April 5th and 6th.

Chag Kasher v’Samayach. Wishing all our friends a wonderful, joyous and meaningful Passover.

Vayikra 5770-2010

"Do Leaders Corrupt, or are They Corrupted?" --

In this coming week's parasha, parashat Vayikra, we learn of the varied sacrifices and offerings that were brought in the Tabernacle, including burnt offerings, meal offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings.

The first sin offering mentioned is brought by the High Priest who has been elevated to his office through the ceremony of anointment. As the spiritual leader of the people of Israel, the High Priest is responsible for the people's religious well-being. Before there were rabbis, the priests actually served as the clergy and teachers of Israel. It was their responsibility to study the Torah and to teach it to the people.

The sages of the Talmud, Horayot 7a, conclude that the High Priest's sin offering is brought only under special circumstances. A Cohen Gadol, a High Priest, brings this sin offering if he makes an error in interpreting the law because it is obscure, and unintentionally sins on account of that error.

In Leviticus 4:3, the Torah tells us, "Eem ha'Cohen ha'Ma'shee'ach yeh'cheh'ta l'ahsh'maht hah'ahm, v'hik'reev ahl chah'tah'toh ah'sher chah'tah, par ben bakar tah'meem la'Hashem l'chah'taht," If the anointed Cohen will sin, bringing guilt upon the people; for his sin that he committed, he shall offer a young bull, unblemished, to the L-rd, as a sin offering.

Rabbi Chaim Dov Rabinowitz (1909-2001, Lithuanian born Bible scholar), in his comprehensive commentary on Jewish Scripture known as Da'at Sofrim, provides a Talmudic overview of the High Priest's obligation. Rabbi Rabinowitz explains that when listing the sin offerings, Scripture cites the sin of the anointed priest first, because his sin is more severe than that of all others, since he is closer to G-d and is expected to be far more punctilious in his behavior than a common Jew.

When the verse says that the priest brings guilt upon the people, it underscores that the anointed priest is not a common citizen, and that his misdeeds impact on the spiritual ledger of the people. Citing the Talmudic reference, Rabbi Rabinowitz notes how tragic it is for the people to have a leader who errs and sins.

The fact that the verse states that the anointed priest brings an offering for the sin that he has committed, might lead one to conclude that the offering comes to cleanse the Cohen from his sins, so that he can return to the Tabernacle and resume his holy duties. An old retired priest, on the other hand, who no longer performs the holy duties should not have to bring the offering. The rabbis, nevertheless, deduce from Scripture that even a retired priest who no longer actively serves is still obligated to bring the offerings for his past trespasses, since he was sanctified at birth and that sanctity remains upon him for the duration of his life.

The Talmud also asserts that one might mistakenly conclude that the anointed priest only brings offerings if others sin due to his mistake and instruction. However, this is not the case. An anointed priest brings the offering only if he himself trespassed because of a mistaken interpretation of the law. In fact, if the anointed priest sins together with the community he would not bring his own individual offering, but would join in the common offering that is brought to atone for the community's trespass.

Among the biblical commentators, there is a rather heated debate about what causes a High Priest to trespass. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible) maintains that when a High Priest sins, he brings sin upon all the people, for the people are dependent upon him to atone for them and to pray on their behalf. It is the sinfulness of the High Priest that leads to the people's guilt, because their leader has not represented them effectively before G-d. Two other major classical commentators disagree with Rashi. The Ibn Ezra (1098-c.1164, Spanish Bible commentator) and the Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob, 1470-1550, Italian Bible commentator) assert that people of great stature, like a High Priest, do not easily succumb to sin. Consequently, they conclude, it must be the low spiritual level of the people that drags the priest down.

It seems as if the Ibn Ezra and the Sforno subscribe to the well- known contemporary belief that people get the type of leaders that they deserve. Sinful people attract sinful leaders, good people attract good leaders.

There is no question that we are presently experiencing a leadership "black hole." Hardly a day passes that we do not learn of another leader who is exposed for illicit or immoral acts. The leaders run the gamut: governmental leaders as well as members of the clergy. How tragic it is that in less than one decade, three governors--of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut--were forced to resign for sexual misdeeds, misuse of authority or bribery. The question is, is the crisis of leadership due to the personal shortcomings of the leaders themselves or is the crisis of leadership due to their constituents? It seems as if this ancient debate has still not been resolved.

As I was standing in a synagogue recently, a visitor presented me with a postcard-sized list of the 43 Kings of Judah and Israel. Four kings, Saul, Ishboshet, David and Solomon, ruled over a united Israel. There were an additional 20 Kings of Judah and 19 Kings of Israel who ruled over the divided kingdom. Upon researching the subject, I discovered that more than half of the 43 kings were wicked. But not just wicked, they were idolaters, murderers, adulterers, and child sacrificers. In fact, 9 of the kings were themselves murdered, often by the "king" who succeeded them.

In many ways, we today should be happy that our politicians and religious leaders, venal as they are, are not committing the heinous crimes, sins and trespasses of the ancient kings of Israel.

In direct contradiction to many ancient philosophies and to much of contemporary thought, Judaism believes that, by nature, human beings are essentially evil, and that it takes rigorous efforts to do good. Evil happens automatically, while good always requires a proactive effort.

So, have we become a nation of Sodomites? By some objective standards, perhaps. Because of the incredible advances in technology we have produced weapons with massive destructive capacity that are killing more people than in any time in history. Television and the internet have brought more decadence into the home than in any time in history. It should come then as little surprise that probably 80% of Western society's entertainment and amusement is based on violence and sex. There is more of that than perhaps at any other time in history.

Are we corrupting our leaders, or are our leaders corrupting us? It seems as if the author of Ecclesiastes 7:20 was absolutely correct when he wrote, "There is no truly righteous person in the land who has not done evil." A wicked environment reduces its citizens, dehumanizes them, perverting those who seek to be honest, and blinding those who wish to be just.

Perhaps we need to return to the beginning, to circle the wagons and fight back. In ancient times, the priest could bring a public sin offering so that he and the people could start afresh. Unfortunately, our impoverished generation no longer has sacrifices. What offering can we bring to let everyone know that we have gone astray and to ask for help in leading us back on the righteous path?

Woe to the generation that has lost its way. Woe to the generation that has no leaders. In the absence of leaders, we must step up to lead.

May you be blessed.

Vayakhel-Pekudei 5770-2010

"Heaven Helps Those Who Help Themselves" --

In the second of this week's double parashiot, parashat Pekudei, we read that after many days, weeks and months of labor (although no time is actually specified in the Torah) the work of the Mishkan, the Tabernacle, was completed.

In Exodus 39:32, we are told, "Va'tay'chel kohl ah'vo'daht mishkan ohel mo'ayd, va'yah'ah'soo Bnei Yisrael k'chol ah'sher tzee'vah Hashem et Moshe kayn ah'soo," All the work of the Tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting, was completed, and the children of Israel had done everything that the L-rd commanded Moses, so did they do.

The rabbis find the syntax of this verse awkward. The Hebrew word "Va'tay'chel" implies that the work of the Tabernacle was finished on its own. But then the verse states, "Va'yah'ah'soo Bnei Yisrael," the children of Israel had done everything that G-d commanded Moses to do. It would be much more logical for the verse to first state that the children of Israel had done everything that G-d commanded them to do, and then conclude with the phrase that the work of the Tabernacle was complete.

Interestingly enough, we find a similar description with regard to Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. In I Kings 6:7, when describing the conclusion of the building of the great Temple, Scripture states, "V'habayit b'hee'bah'noh'toh eh'vehn sh'lay'mah ma'sah niv'nah," For the house, when it was in building, was built in stone made ready at the quarry. The verse goes on to say that there was neither hammer nor ax, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was being built. Just as with the Tabernacle, Scripture does not state that the Temple was being built, but that it was in the process of building, as if it were building itself.

From this textual nuance in parashat Pekudei the rabbis deduce the futility of one who says, "I'd like to perform this mitzvah, but it seems impossible in my eyes." With that attitude of despair, the rabbis say, that mitzvah will never be accomplished. However, one who starts performing a mitzvah, despite knowing how difficult it might be, will find that the mitzvah will become progressively easier because Heaven will help those who make the effort. And even though much, or most, of the mitzvah was actually done through the help of Heaven, Heaven itself considers as if that mitzvah was done by human effort alone. Therefore, explain the rabbis, our verse states that the work of the Tabernacle was completed, as if by itself, and the children of Israel did all that G-d commanded. Scripture, in essence, attributes the entire accomplishment to the people of Israel, and not to G-d.

The rabbis further explain that the biblical verse suggests that the people felt inadequate because of the highly skilled labor that was required for many of the Tabernacle furnishings. But because of their full-hearted commitment to complete the Tabernacle, G-d instilled in them the skills that were necessary to accomplish the task.

Among the important contemporary lessons that may be gleaned from this particular verse are: the need for faith in ourselves, the need for faith in G-d, and the need for faith that G-d really cares and will help us.

Very often, the greatest impediment to success is our lack of faith in ourselves. We find the "little stuff" simply overwhelming. I recall one memorable instance many years ago. I was instructing several students how to kosher their homes, and suddenly we came across some non-kosher chewing gum on one of the shelves. Immediately one young woman definitively declared (it was captured on video): "If I can't have my chewing gum, I will never be able to be kosher!" Her perceived love for that brand of non-kosher chewing gum made her feel that she could never live without it. Fortunately, that was not the case. She currently lives in Jerusalem with her family and is a very accomplished and observant person.

If the desire and commitment is there (which may also be due to the help of G-d), there is really nothing that can stand in the way of accomplishing whatever we wish to accomplish, as long as we have confidence in ourselves.

The rabbis also teach that aside from personal confidence, faith in G-d is often as important as skill. There are different ways for us to develop our self confidence. Obviously, those who dream of becoming great pianists or great swimmers need to practice their skills and retain expert instructors who help them master the skills and techniques that are necessary. What is also necessary is that we have the belief that we can do it. This is what our rabbis call "s'yah'tah dish'mahya," help from Heaven.

There is, however, another aspect to this issue, that we often fail to note. The L-rd makes things happen for those who have trust in Him.

I have often wondered why Anwar Sadat concluded a monumental peace treaty with Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin. After all, Menachem Begin was a hard-line Prime Minister. As a follower of Jabotinsky, he believed that not only was the West Bank of the Jordan part of Israel, but the East Bank as well. Nevertheless, peace came to Menachem Begin, and not to the more conciliatory Prime Ministers like Golda Meir or Levi Eshkol. I believe that this is directly attributable to the fact that Menachem Begin was the first Prime Minister in Israeli history, to ever use the phrase, "With the help of G-d we will achieve peace." Menachem Begin opened the door just a little to the Al-mighty, and let Him in. The rest is history!

We need not only have confidence in ourselves and confidence in G-d, we need to truly believe that G-d will help.

A beautiful story is told of two chasiddim who were on a business trip, and needed a place to stay for Shabbat. They finally found a kosher inn whose proprietor was a religious man. During the long Shabbat afternoon, the chasiddim begin to regale the innkeeper with stories about their wonder-working Rebbe. Upon hearing the fascinating stories, the innkeeper pleaded with them, that when they return home to their Rebbe, that they ask him for his blessing that he and his wife should have a child. Although the chassidim were a little nonplused, they agreed to do so.

That evening, after Shabbat, the innkeeper did a very strange thing. He outfitted a baby carriage with everything that a baby needed, and began to accost all the guests in the inn telling them to wish him a "Mazal Tov," because his wife was going to give birth to a child. "Did you hear the news?!" he shouted, "The two chassidim are going to ask for a blessing for my wife and myself, and she is going to give birth!"

When the two chassidim returned home and met their Rebbe, they related to him the request and the strange behavior of the innkeeper.

A year later, the two chassidim were on the same road, but were reluctant to enter the inn, perhaps the innkeeper's wife had not had a child. They listened by the door, and sure enough, they heard the cries of a newborn baby. Taking a chance, they entered, arriving at the circumcision ceremony of the innkeeper's firstborn son.

The innkeeper blessed the chassidim and showered them with gifts. But one of the two chassidim fell strangely silent, and all the way home refused to speak to the other chassid.

When they reached the outskirts of the village, the chassid broke into a run and ran into the court where the Rebbe lived, pounded on the door, pushed the assistant aside, and entered the Rebbe's chambers unannounced.

Startled, the Rebbe looked up, and saw the pained chassid standing before him.

The Rebbe said, "What's the matter, my son?" To which the chassid replied, "How could you be so cruel and uncaring? I am a loyal follower of yours. My father was a loyal follower of your father. Every year I come to you and beg that my wife and I be blessed with a child, and we have no child! This innkeeper never even met you, and he has a child! How could you be so cruel!?"

The Rebbe looked up, gazed piercingly into the chassid's eyes and said, "Did you ever push a baby carriage? Did you ever have the faith that my blessing would help?"

S'yah'tah dish'mahya, help from Heaven, comes to those who believe in themselves and in G-d, and are willing to make the special effort. The Tabernacle was finished by the people of Israel, even though they were unable to do it alone and needed G-d's help. They became G-d's partner. And, G-d became their partner.

May you be blessed.

This Shabbat, also known as Shabbat HaChodesh, is the last of the four special Shabbatot that surround the holiday of Purim. On this Shabbat a thematic Torah portion concerning the new month, Nissan, is read from Exodus 12:1-20.